[justicezyx]

Usually, the assertive arguments on non-technical ideas are difficult to address.

It's easy to identify the fundamental misconception in the argument. But the proponent is always very fervent on that point from the very beginning. That makes the debate more ideological and less rational.

That's the conundrum of such debates. The balance heavily favors the first one who claimed the high ground, regardless what value that one actually stands for.

[whynaut]

Can you elaborate on this? I feel like I grok 55% of this, and that it is probably worth grokking, if I could get there.

[justicezyx]

So rational arguments have to be based on the foundation that either or both of the opposite sides can and should change thoughts based on the information exchanged during the conversation.

Assertive non technical argument usually is based certain belief(s), which are often obviously wrong outside it's narrow scope.

But these arguments are held by people actually believe in them with a conviction that is clearly based on emotions therefore by definition irrational.

So when someone engaged in such argument and tries to argue otherwise, the discussion has to be like try to mold a steel cylinder with a bear hand. Sure you can wear down a steel cylinder with bear hand, through enough patience and time. But in the span of a discussion, that's impossible.

Thus, the one who stick the steel cylinder first is bound to win, or at least not loose, for example, the counterpart decide to stick their own cylinder and 2 sides appear no longer engage, until the circumstance requires the clash or some random side wire that causes the clash.